Friday, 22nd March, 2019

I'm mostly using the original 3rd edition adventure, but I have all three editions and compare them frequently.
1. I suppose that is possible. But Shealis should know (I doubt any Shahalesti agent would act within Gate Pass without informing her) and why wouldn't she inform Larion? I assume she gave him the mission to the Depository.
2. Yes, if they don't tell Kurychek the riddle, he won't be able to solve it. But the full text is "With its knowledge of the planes it can easily solve the riddle if the party is stumped, but it also knows the door is trapped. If the party needs help with that too, the imp says to give it a moment and stay out of sight, and it skulks away." So the text seems to imply that even if Kurychek helps them with the riddle, they will still need help with the trap. Why would that be? It seems I'm missing some understanding about how the trap and the door work.
1. There should be a disconnect that separates that knowledge. Maybe killed in an operation without reali...

Tuesday, 2nd January, 2018

Another thing that popped up in our playtest: movement in combat. Are there any rules for it, beyond "you can move your speed"? Can you withdraw from melee at no cost? Move past opponents? I found a few universal exploits connected to this, but what would the basic rule be?
There are no rules beyond “you can move your speed”.
It’s a mobile skirmishy combat system. It is designed to not stick people in place and keep them moving. It’s all about the positioning and tactics.

Thursday, 21st December, 2017

Bobbert Cop has CHA 7 (2d6) and LUC 3 (3d6) in your screen-shot. Those dice pools seem a bit off.
Nice catch! There's bound to be bugs along the way that I need to squash. I'll do some investigating to see why this is happening.
E: Yep, found it. I confused myself with some code formatting and mixed up attribute names. Thanks, Oldtimer. :)

Friday, 29th January, 2016

I'm afraid not. These things are listed under the subheading "Other Strength Checks", not under the subheading "Athletics". Not all ability checks are related to a skill in 5E.
Ah, you are correct, I misread that. My bad, and I apologize. Should have read it more carefully.
This right here has been a blind spot for WOTC game designers going back to 3rd edition--leaving ability checks around that have no way to improve them, and then not providing any direction that DC's for ability checks where one can't apply a skill or proficiency bonus need to be lower to compensate.
Athletics should absolutely apply to those checks, and in any game I run, they do.

Monday, 9th November, 2015

Mange tak!
You are welcome :D LEt me know if you can use it for anything
Sorry for the long break in updates, but here is the next installment. Not sure when I will find the time for the next one, but don't worry I will find the time.
Chapter 4
The party
Galion – Elf ranger lvl. 7
Shaith – Fire elf fire domain wizard lvl. 5 / Incantatrix 2
Killian – Human priest of Heironious lvl. 3 / Church Inquisitor 1 / Ordained champion 3
NPC
Faquaniel Fighter 2 / Rogue 3
March 15
After a week of relaxation and recuperation the party was called up to Lyceum for a meeting. In the week that went by, they had recruited Faquaniel to supplement the party. She had a skillset that they were missing.
DM Note: At this point I decided that it was time for them to have a NPC to join the group. I asked them a bit about what they were seeking to add to the group. They wanted a fighter/Rogue, so I decided to level up Faquaniel to level 5 and she became the party NPC.
They knew she was a Sha...

Sunday, 26th July, 2015

Surely, the translation of Basic D&D by FSV was pretty deliberate? Deliberate enough to make TSR force us to print our swedish Basic Sets at FSV. :(
The quality of FSV's translation was dubious. Quality control was pretty much non-existent, so German adventurers could buy torch lights for the dungeon. Regarding the naming of monsters there were some curious translations as well, but one has to consider that theirs was the first try at such a project.
FSV didn't do any printing itself; it was a small studio founded as subsidiary of a then big boardgame publisher (ASS). I don't think that ASS had its own printing plant, especially not designed for books. I'd rather assume that they were able to strike a deal for a big contract, bundling several internatianal editions, but this is pure guesswork.

Monday, 20th July, 2015

Well, one place you might have seen it is in this very thread (post #28). But I suppose more people than me have invented that same solution.
Though my version only allows +1 to one attack roll in that turn. Still very useful.
I'd thought it was said here on Enworld, but I have a memory like a sieve and could not be sure. Fortunately, as I had hoped, you came forward to remind me! :)

Thursday, 9th July, 2015

Here's my take on this: combat incentivises players to leave all the rolling up to the PC with the highest bonus, too.
Not really. Sending the fighter into combat alone without any help, will almost certainly end with a dead fighter.
On the whole incentivization topic, I see what pemerton means -- just about any situation can be framed to incentivize party-wide participation. But as an introvert, I think that framing situations like this on the fly would be exhausting for me. If I can plan a SC so that it 'naturally' incentivizes everyone to get involved, as combat does*, now that's ideal!
*Barring the occasional duel-of-champions.

Wednesday, 8th July, 2015

Not really. Sending the fighter into combat alone without any help, will almost certainly end with a dead fighter.
No, we let the orcs surround the fighter and beat him to a bloody pulp in a round or two.
The mechanism X successes before 3 failures doesn't look anything like combat. Attacking and missing doesn't bring you closer to losing the combat than just being stunned for the round unable to do anything. It is the opponents' successes in hitting you that bring you closer to losing the combat.
X successes before 3 failures incentivises letting a single character do all the work. You can force the players' hands, but the game mechanism is fighting against you rather than helping you.
Quickleaf gave the example: "A trapped treasure vault rigged to blow if wrong answer is given. In this scenario an X successes before Y failures is appropriate." I agree and as a player in that scenario I would certainly send forth the most knowledgeable character while the rest of us hid around a corner. P...

X successes before 3 failures incentivises letting a single character do all the work. You can force the players' hands, but the game mechanism is fighting against you rather than helping you.It only creates that incentive if the GM frames the fiction in such a way that nothing bad is going to happen if no one else acts. Given that D&D is a party-based game, we don't generally design and adjudicate combat encounters in that way, so why would we do so for non-combat encounters?
The mechanism X successes before 3 failures doesn't look anything like combat. Attacking and missing doesn't bring you closer to losing the combat than just being stunned for the round unable to do anything. It is the opponents' successes in hitting you that bring you closer to losing the combat.But those successes are a function of attacking and missing, because if you attack and hit then you take the opponent out of the fight.
Sending the fighter into combat alone without any help, will almost certainly end with...

Tuesday, 19th May, 2015

I just noticed the Twitter quote. I can't belive that ruling.
So if you have taken Lucky, you're better of closing your eyes before attacking (assuming you don't have Sneak Attack). That's just silly.
Again, no you would not. See the post above yours from me.

I had to read it several times, but my conclusion is that they left out one important word "and then decide which two of the three dice to use." Then the disadvantage will eat the highest of those two.
Sorry but.... this clarification matches what he has said on twitter, and matches the RAW of the rules in the book. I think its a simple RAW ruling.

Wednesday, 11th February, 2015

Actually he died in 1936 (June 11). And no-one owns the rights to his works. The copyright has expired for all his stories.
That swedish company is trying to weasel into ownership through trademark law (which is doubtful) and the very nebulous "properties". Any reasonable judge would laugh at them in court.
The last owner did their very best to ensure no one could release the books, Paradox (the brand owners) have overseen a massive rerelease of the original books by major publishers bringing CONAN to a whole new generation, along with films and other merchandising. So I'd say it's being nurtured pretty well. Reasonable judges have also backed them up in court numerous times as well :-)

Sunday, 20th July, 2014

I'm afraid not. These things are listed under the subheading "Other Strength Checks", not under the subheading "Athletics". Not all ability checks are related to a skill in 5E.
Ah, you are correct, I misread that. My bad, and I apologize. Should have read it more carefully.

Saturday, 19th July, 2014

You mean like the things listed in this paper? :cool:
Indeed thanks. & it shows why RPGs are so rich as they hit so many of the Aesthetics & also presumably why they are so divisive as we all prioritise different ones.